Short Summary
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00041 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,058,153 B2, Google LLC and Motorola Mobility LLC jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement with patent owner Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and ordered the settlement agreements to be treated as confidential business information per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). No merits were decided, and the proceeding was closed without a final written decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Motorola Mobility LLC et al. vs Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsAmerican GNC Corporation
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.